Disposed

Jaiprakash Sharma v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC27 Jan 2023CW/879/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta disposed of a writ petition by directing the disciplinary authority to decide the petitioner's representation for reinstatement under Rule 13(5) of the Rules of 1958, relying on the Manvendra Singh judgment, and noted that the stay application also stood disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Respondent disciplinary authority directed to decide petitioner's representation for reinstatement within four weeks.

Jaiprakash Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/002516]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 879/2023

¶4

Jaiprakash Sharma S/o Shri Purshottam Sharma, Aged About 59 Years, House No. 327, R.k. Puram, Kota Gram Vikas Adhkari, Gram Panchayat Jhalar Baori, Panchayat Samiti Bhensroadgarh, District Chittorgarh (Under Suspension).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayat Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Pareek

¶11

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶12

Order

¶13

27/01/2023

¶14

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 16.09.2020 (Annex.-2), whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension.

¶15

The petitioner made representation, inter alia, indicating that challan has not been filed against the petitioner and despite passage of sufficiently long time, the petitioner has not been reinstated and, therefore, the order of suspension requires review and the petitioner deserves to be reinstated.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to judgment in Manvendra Singh v. State of Raj. & Ors.: SBCW No. 4276/2018 , decided on 21.12.2018 at Jaipur Bench submitted that the Court in the said judgment has dealt with the powers of

(2 of 2)

[2023/RJJD/002516]

[CW-879/2023]

the disciplinary authority under Rule 13(5) of the Rules of 1958 and appellate authority under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1958 and has held that the various circulars issued by the State Government laying down limitation to examine the revocation of suspension order after a period of three years from the date of suspension/after a period of one year from the date, the chargesheet has been filed, was not justified and it was open for the authorities to examine the case for revocation of suspension even prior to the said periods fixed in the circular.

¶21

In the over all facts and circumstances of the case as projected as well as the law laid down by this Court in the case of Manvendra Singh (supra), the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of, the respondent - disciplinary authority is directed to decide the representations made by the petitioner in light of the judgment in the case of Manvendra Singh (supra).

¶22

The needful may be done by the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of this order is placed by the petitioner.

¶23

The petitioner would be free to file a further representation along with requisite documents before the disciplinary authority.

¶24

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶25

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶26

530-akansha/-

Jaiprakash Sharma v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaiprakash Sharma v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Leela Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Gayatri Vyas Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamlesh Kumar Soni Vs State of Rajasthan

Mayur Joshi Vs State of Rajasthan

Hukma Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ronak Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan